"Indeed, scale is a big problem. Developing countries that are trying to industrialize, China being the most prominent example, need electricity delivered at scale. That is much harder to do with renewables for what I'll characterize as energy density reasons."
I'm assuming you are unaware of the massive deployment of renewables in China at scales which far exceed the USAs. Indeed, Europe's penetration of renewables exceeds the USA's as well. The USA is a bit of a laggard, actually.
Energy density is an argument favored by nuclear advocates despite its irrelevancy because they have little else to stand on. As I discussed with MacArthur Genius Award winner Jon Dabiri a few years ago, there's an absurd amount of land space, the amount required for renewables is much smaller than most people think, and the cost of leasing it is factored into the LCOE, so is already accounted for, and nuclear still loses.
Transmission losses are well under 10% on even the USA's relatively poorly managed grid, and better in places which manage infrastructure more effectively such as Europe and China. The growth of HVDC appears to have escaped you as well, which reduces efficiency losses even further. And, once again, utilities factor efficiency losses into their cost cases, so it's accounted for and nuclear still loses.
https://medium.com/predict/future-of-electricity-transmission-is-hvdc-9800a545cd18
SMRs fail multiple tests of economic sanity. Even Terrapower is now designing a >GW capacity reactor, turning it back into a megaproject with expected cost and schedule overruns.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-are-mostly-bad-policy/
I'm pleased to hear you found the piece you commented on provocative. Perhaps you'll find my response provocative as well.
